[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DB00F4930@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:30:08 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Daniel Mack' <daniel@...que.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC: "htejun@...com" <htejun@...com>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"ast@...com" <ast@...com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kafai@...com" <kafai@...com>, "fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>,
"pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>,
"harald@...hat.com" <harald@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"sargun@...gun.me" <sargun@...gun.me>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/6] bpf: add BPF_PROG_ATTACH and BPF_PROG_DETACH
commands
From: Daniel Mack
> >> +
> >> + struct { /* anonymous struct used by BPF_PROG_ATTACH/DETACH commands */
> >> + __u32 target_fd; /* container object to attach to */
> >> + __u32 attach_bpf_fd; /* eBPF program to attach */
> >> + __u32 attach_type; /* BPF_ATTACH_TYPE_* */
> >> + __u64 attach_flags;
> >> + };
> >
> > there is a 4 byte hole in this struct. Can we pack it differently?
>
> Okay - I swapped "type" and "flags" to repair this.
That just moves the pad to the end of the structure.
Still likely to cause a problem for 32bit apps on a 64bit kernel.
If you can't think of any flags, why 64 of them?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists